Amoroso v. Stop & Shop

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Amoroso v. Stop & Shop

99 A.D.3d 962, 952 N.Y.2d 469

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 24, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 99 A.D.3d 962 (Amoroso v. Stop & Shop) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amoroso v. Stop & Shop, 99 A.D.3d 962, 952 N.Y.2d 469 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant Stop and Shop (hereinafter the moving defendant) failed to demonstrate that the venue of this action should be changed from Queens County to Nassau County. The moving defendant failed to substantiate its claim that, upon the discontinuance of this action against the defendant Hempstead Turnpike, LLC, none of the parties was a resident of Queens County, since it failed to submit any proof as to its own residence (see generally CPLR 503 [a], [c]; cf. Messiha v Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., 77 AD3d 894, 895 [2010]). Furthermore, the moving defendant failed to demonstrate that venue should be transferred to Nassau County based on the convenience of witnesses (see CPLR 510 [3]; O’Brien v Vassar Bros. Hosp., 207 AD2d 169 [1995]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying that branch of the moving defendant’s motion which was to change the venue to Nassau County. Eng, EJ., Skelos, Chambers and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The defendant Stop and Shop (hereinafter the moving defendant) failed to demonstrate that the venue of this action should be changed from Queens County to Nassau County. The moving defendant failed to substantiate its claim that, upon the discontinuance of this action against the defendant Hempstead Turnpike, LLC, none of the parties was a resident of Queens County, since it failed to submit any proof as to its own residence (see generally CPLR 503 [a], [c]; cf. Messiha v Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., 77 AD3d 894, 895 [2010]). Furthermore, the moving defendant failed to demonstrate that venue should be transferred to Nassau County based on the convenience of witnesses (see CPLR 510 [3]; O’Brien v Vassar Bros. Hosp., 207 AD2d 169 [1995]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying that branch of the moving defendant’s motion which was to change the venue to Nassau County. Eng, EJ., Skelos, Chambers and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.3d 962, 952 N.Y.2d 469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amoroso-v-stop-shop-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack